XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, rec.sport.football.college,   
   rec.food.cooking   
   XPost: alt.gothic   
      
   On Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:31:09 -0700, Lord Infomouse    
   wrote:   
      
   >On 12/12/2012 11:43 PM, Rupert wrote:   
   >> On Dec 12, 9:40 pm, dh@. wrote:   
   >>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 01:17:59 -0800 (PST), Rupert    
   >>> wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> I don't claim to be too stupid to comprehend anything. I claim that   
   >>>> you haven't offered a definition of the phrase "life of positive   
   >>>> value" which conveys any useful information.   
   >>>   
   >>>      I haven't offered a definition of a good life, yet you pretend you're   
   not   
   >>> too stupid to comprehend what that means. If you're not so stupid that you   
   >>> depend on me for your own definition of what good means, why ARE you so   
   stupid   
   >>> that you're dependant on me for what positive value means?   
   >>   
   >> It can be taken for granted that every native English speaker   
   >> understands the phrase "a good life" to some extent at least, even if   
   >> it's not precisely defined. It's a commonly understood concept. That's   
   >> not the case with the phrase "life of positive value". That phrase   
   >> only makes sense in the context of some set of background assumptions   
   >> about the nature of value, and you have to make explicit what your   
   >> background assumptions are.   
   >>   
   >>> Of course I also have   
   >>> to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend the defintion I gave you,   
   >>   
   >> I comprehend it perfectly well, but it conveys no useful information.   
   >>   
   >>> and of   
   >>> course have to wonder why you're too stupid to comprehend why all lives of   
   >>> positive value are not good. Those are all easy concepts we understood and   
   >>> discussed in class by the time I was in sixth grade,   
   >>   
   >> This isn't true. You did not discuss the phrase "life of positive   
   >> value" in sixth grade.   
   >   
   >A "life of positive value" is anything other than the guy or gal who   
   >puts a bomb in the center of the earth and blows it apart.  He or she is   
   >living a life of "negative value" .   
      
       We're talking about value of life to the individual living it. Some   
   livestock animals have lives of negative value and some of positive value.   
   That's true of all beings, including humans. Rupert thinks he can comprehend   
   what a "good" life is, but not one of positive value. Hilarious for a guy   
   claiming to have a PhD in math, but also absolutely pathetic. I've pointed out   
   to him that life doesn't necessarily have to be good in order to be of positive   
   value, but just not involve enough suffering to be of negative value. That's so   
   obvious and easy to understand that we discussed it in regards to slavery in   
   grade school and no one had any problem with it. Rupert would have been the   
   only   
   person in the class who could not comprehend. If he honestly is too stupid to   
   comprehend, I can only believe he necessarily must be lying about having   
   obtained a PhD. If he really is that stupid I doubt he could even obtain a   
   driver's license, and in fact he does not have one. I don't doubt that he could   
   lie about having a PhD though, and I've seen his hero Goo do it more than once.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)